[cgl_discussion] CGL and DCL trees

Skip Ford skip.ford at verizon.net
Wed Dec 11 14:34:03 PST 2002

Patrick Mochel wrote:
> > >   Well, sure and you could call your tree -ac or -mm or any
> > > other name that was already in use.  But you would just be
> > > causing problems for everybody. 
> > 
> > You're missing the point.
> > 
> > I wouldn't have the _right_ to call it -ac or -mm.  I would have
> > the right to call it -cgl.
> Technically, you would have the right to call it -ac or -mm. Usually, one 
> wouldn't be so rude as to use a name that is already in use. 
> I don't understand why people are making such a big deal about the issue 
> anyway. It's a Linux kernel tree with a certain name intended for a 
> certain purpose. It's primary focus, as stated by Tim and Mika, is to 
> implement the features set forth by the Working Group. I cannot think of a 
> more perfect name that '-cgl'.

So basically it's OK with you if we have a dozen trees named -cgl as
long as their primary focus is to implement the features set forth by
the Working Group.

> Speaking as a non-partisan kernel developer, Get over it. 
> You're all wasting time arguing about silly semantics and naming issues 
> when you could be getting real work done that would benefit everyone in 
> this space, regardless of tree name they work under. 

It goes far beyond naming issues.  They are handling the tree
incorrectly IMO.  We already have enough trees that are staging points
for other patches to make it into mainline.  The _real_ CGL tree (which
their's is _not_) should be a permanent tree which _rejects_ patches
that will make it into mainline.  Those sorts of patches should go to
-ac or -mm or -wli or a dozen other come and go trees.

Somebody has to maintain all the patchsets that will _never_ be accepted
at least by Linus and the tree that houses those patches is the real CGL
tree, and that's not what the current "-cgl" tree is.


More information about the cgl_discussion mailing list